Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that although a husband’s guaranty does not bind the community property, the husband’s “separate estate is, of course, liable on the guaranty”
• noting clear and unambiguous language of guaranty must be given effect as written
• “[T]he plain meaning of A.R.S. § 25-214(0(2) requires that both spouses must execute a guaranty in order to bind the community.”
• Arizona Commercial Code not applicable to continuing guaranties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).